Changing the narrative, from BDS to antifa

The confluence of fascism and Zionism is becoming more obvious by the day, with alt-right leader Richard Spencer describing himself as a “white Zionist,” while the Zionist Organization of American invites Steve Bannon as a speaker at its annual gala. And as the two forms of racial supremacy merge seamlessly together, the Palestinian struggle for human rights and dignity can set the model for discursive changes, the rejection of racism as status-quo, no matter how powerfully endorsed by the state and its militarized apparatus, and an understanding that together, we are greater than the sum of our parts.

Indeed, Palestinians immediately noticed the eerie similarity between the current administration’s discourse, which insists that there is “blame on both sides,” and posits a fake symmetry between fascism and protests against hatred, and our own experience being described as terrorists, anti-Semites, a depraved people who do not value life, and deserve, indeed provoke the violence being inflicted upon us.

Yet over the decades, with our painstaking determination to educate about the historical context, and thus expose Israeli abuses, and with the principled commitment of the BDS movement to envision and lay the groundwork for a genuinely egalitarian society unfettered by ethnic or gender privileges, we have finally chipped away at the long-held belief that “the conflict is thousands of years old,” and “the Palestinians want to throw the Jews into the sea.” Today, most people know the “conflict” is an anti-colonial struggle, and that Palestinians once included Jews, Muslims, and Christians, until Israel created the “Jewish nationality,” and stripped Palestinians of any rights in their ancestral homeland, now become “the Jewish state.”

BDS in particular has bought together a broad base of activists globally, who have successfully broken through the once unquestioned Zionist narrative of Jewish victimhood at the hands of anti-Semitic Arabs, and the need for a Jewish supremacist state. We have educated millions about the reality of Israeli racism and apartheid, and we have shown the world that there is an alternative to the corrupt “peace process” that still pretends to seek to achieve two states, even as it poisons that possibility by creating toxic “facts on the ground.” And as our base has grown to include millions of BDS supporters and activists globally, we have also shown that BDS is an inclusive strategy that embraces and empowers each and every one who is opposed to settler-colonialism, racial supremacy, and the violation of any people’s human rights.

Today, as anti-fascist protesters are described by the mainstream as “violent thugs,” and as Americans are being told that racism is part of the fabric of this country and can therefore never be completely eliminated, the struggle for Palestinian rights offers an alternative vision: we don’t have to accept injustice, even when the system is set up, has always been set up, to perpetuate it. We may be called terrorists, “thugs,” our tactics and strategies may be unpopular, but we can prevail, and rather than settle for “pacification” through extreme oppression, we can aspire to genuine peace—an outcome of justice and equality. After all, Israel, just like the US, is a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism, with the aim of establishing and maintaining the superiority of one perceived ethnicity. And if we can question and challenge that fundamental injustice in one country, we can question and challenge it in another.

Indeed, the protests against alt-right rallies last month in Boston, MA and Berkeley, CA have proven one thing beyond refute: when we come together, we win. We have not (yet) ended fascism, nor are we even changing the fascists’ views. But we are winning because we are reclaiming our cities, our campuses, our parks, as we show the fascists that they are unwelcome, forcing them to cancel many of their planned events, and retreat back to the margins and the “dark web,” where they belong. And we have secured our victories with our numbers. The 40.000 protesters in Boston did not see eye-to-eye on everything, my bet is that they actually disagreed on many issues, even as they came together to reject fascism in their city. And so did the hundreds who protested in the Bay Area, and who included anti-police activists, Black Bloc activists, anarchists, atheists, faith leaders, disability rights activists, and thousands of activists and organizers who, until the night before, would certainly have not described themselves as “antifa,” and are likely still puzzling about the label. Indeed, multiple articles have been written in the past month attempting to define what “antifa” is, and the term still feels alien to many who are protesting fascism. The confusion is likely due to the fact that there was an “antifa” group active long before the recent overt displays of fascism all around the country, whereas many anti-hate protesters are only now taking to the streets, as they realize the uniqueness and urgency of the moment. Donald Trump’s election, and his many outrageous statements and actions since January, have so emboldened the alt-right that they no longer feel the need to cover up in sheets and hoods, but walk around instead in “casual Friday” outfits, knowing most will be back at their desks by Monday.

Yet “antifa,” short for “anti-fascism,” is the broad umbrella that will protect us today. Because at this juncture in US politics, the protestors are rallying and forming alliances based on their common opposition to fascism, rather than the causes closest to individual hearts, whatever these are: BLM, indigenous sovereignty, immigrant rights, combating Islamophobia, etc. We are not abandoning these causes, indeed, every one of them represents an aspect of anti-fascism. And we must refuse to be defined as “violent,” “thugs,” and we certainly must watch out for attempts to be labelled “terrorists,” as one currently circulating petition would have it. We must refuse the false equivalency of “many sides,” and “fine people on both sides.” At this moment in the US, there can only be two sides: fascists, and anti-fascists. There is nothing “fine” about fascism. And the anti-fascists, the “antifa,” are the ones protecting the communities that are targeted, threatened by the fascists: blacks, immigrants, Muslims, Jewish, LGBTQ+, and progressive whites.

The “antifa” are the ones who put their bodies on the line in Charlottesville, Boston, and Berkeley, to defend the actual and potential victims of fascist violence. “We would have been crushed like cockroaches if it were not for the anarchists and the anti-fascists,” Cornel West said of the confrontations that erupted in Charlottesville. Sara Kurshner, of the National Lawyers Guild, expressed a similar experience at the protest in Berkeley:

“Our experience on the streets was that we were defended by people who came — as anti-fascists — to do that,” Kurshner told Democracy Now. Tur-Ha Ak, of the Anti-Police Terror Project, also told Democracy Now: “We don’t apologize for any of it. Do not come here with any of it. Do not!” adding about fascism that “It is unwelcome. We have a right and an obligation to self-defense, period. Point blank.”

At this critical moment in US politics, the anti-fascist umbrella must be broad, encompassing, as we say no to state-sanctioned racial supremacy. This too can be a lesson learned from the Palestinian struggle, and from BDS being the call with the broadest base amongst Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and the global diaspora. As it intersects with struggles for decolonization, anti-racism, indigenous sovereignty, anti-incarceration, and anti-Zionism/fascism, the struggle for Palestinian human rights is the central defining struggle of the mid-twentieth century to the present, and reflects many of the struggles within the US. Thus from Gaza to Ferguson, and from BDS to antifa, the Palestinian struggle can show the beauty of resistance as we model and enact the change by coming together, to challenge and confront the greater common foe.

About Nada Elia

Nada Elia is a Palestinian scholar-activist, writer, and grassroots organizer, currently completing a book on Palestinian Diaspora activism.

Posted In:

64 Responses

“Indeed, the protests against alt-right rallies last month in Boston, MA and Berkeley, CA have proven one thing beyond refute: when we come together, we win.” Wow. Shutting down the free speech of a few hundred poor white guys via the corporate owned media whipping people up resulting in 40,000 people in the streets is a victory? You ought to know better. Over the the past fifteen years the “T word”, i.e., terror, has been applied to those the establishment wants to vilify en route to taking away their rights and using violence against them. Now the H word, hate is filling the same role.

” Over the the past fifteen years the “T word”, i.e., terror, has been applied to those the establishment wants to vilify en route to taking away their rights and using violence against them. Now the H word, hate is filling the same role.”

And if the Establishment is for equal rights and non-discrimination, and inclusion, those must be bad things.

And if Mooser believes fairy tales that would be strange. You want to tell me that the state machine in charge and the press are for equal rights and non-discrimination and inclusion and the last 7 wars and the ongoing wars including the Zionist occupation. Fine. Continue wasting liberaloid fake antifascism on a ragtag band of destitute clowns, so that we can safely ignore the spies and Democrats and McCains and generals and such starting more war.

Are the tiki torch white guys just the latest volunteer representatives of what’s been going on a long time, of identity politics? How do the rights of US citizens differ from those in any other sovereign state in the world? Is Israel’s concept of civil rights different than the USA’s? US political leaders constantly tell us Israel shares the same values as USA. It would seem so since Israel gets more foreign aid than any other foreign state, by far.

Let me see if I can follow Mooser’s point. Because guys with the tiki-torches are not his vision of who supports (or “deserves”?) equal rights and non-discrimination….then the establishment must support equal rights and non-discrimination. Is that it?

In theory Zionism is about the Jewish need for self defense through the building of an army centered in Zion. The inevitability of the conflict between this and the needs and rights of the indigenous seems pretty assured. That this conflict led to the exile of vast population of Palestinians was not necessary, but certainly seems predictable given the world events from the 1920’s to 1945. Undoing the exile seems to be at the heart of your project. Israelis consider the undoing of that exile as spelling the end of their army and state. You would concede as much. Since I consider the original goal to be worthy and nonracist, I feel the inevitable clash between the Israelis and yourself to be one that elicits a negative reaction from me.

|| yonah fredman: In theory Zionism is about the Jewish need for self defense through the building of an army centered in Zion. … I consider the original goal to be worthy and nonracist … ||

Zionism has always been about Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine. The goal has always been unjust and immoral. There was and is nothing worthy about:
– the desire to establish a supremacist state;
– the creation of a supremacist state; or
– taking measures to ensure that a supremacist state remains supremacist.

Yes, Mist, Zionism ascribes rights on the basis of (remote!) ancestry, i.e. on the basis of race, and took possession with extraordinary violence and continuing humiliation as its instruments, so theft is s mild word. But doomed? I think that the dark, nationalist spirit of our times is with them. Not to mention the political class of the Western world.

No, Yonah, Zionism is not about the need for self-defence. It’s certainly true that many survivors of the Holocaust found their way to Israel – but they came to Israel because others had built the Yishuv (which was capable of taking them in). Those who had built the kibbutzim, revived the Hebrew language, founded Tel-Aviv were not motivated by the need for self-defence.

Zionism is one of the ideologies of the Haskalah Movement. In other words, it’s one of the attempts to re-define Jewish collective life in the modern world. Zionism wished to build a future for the Jewish people based on the cherished memories of the perceived Jewish past. It is a modern (secular) re-interpretation of the messianic idea, and hence it’s a return to the ancient land, to the ancient language and to Jewish sovereignty.

People running away from anti-Semitism (and in need of self-defence) would not have chosen a corner of the Ottoman Empire as their destination – and they surely wouldn’t have been busy trying to revive extinct languages or experimenting with social utopias. They were busy with a renaissance of Jewish history.

– It’s about self-defence / it’s not about self-defence.
– It’s about the Holocaust / it’s not about the Holocaust.
– It’s about Judaism / it’s not about Judaism.
– Israel is a “moral beacon” / Israel isn’t as bad as Saudi Arabia, etc.
– Israel is a democracy / Israel is a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

Zionists can’t even agree on why it is they’re doing the evil they do.

NATHAN- ” It is a modern (secular) re-interpretation of the messianic idea, and hence it’s a return to the ancient land, to the ancient language and to Jewish sovereignty.”

Interesting comment. You are quite right that Yonah is wrong, usually a fairly safe assumption. Also, the return to Classical (medieval) Judaism in secular form is consistent with Israel Shahak. Congrats. A reasonably accurate description of the early Zionists who were rather elite, the majority of Jews uninterested in becoming a Jewish nation apart. But you have not dealt with the changed Zionism post 1967. For starters, Zionism (like Judaism) has always wildly exaggerated the power and influence of these mythological kingdoms. Hence, Zionism represents a longing for power right from the start. And since the fattest of Jewish fat-cats lives in the US, Israel is but a tool to achieve their power seeking ends, a means to re-invigorate Jewish kinship solidarity, an essential component of Jewish success. Zionism post 1967 has placed a strong emphasis on the Holocaust and Jewish victimhood with the inherent anti-Gentilism that this necessarily entails.

Zionism is a political ideology founded on the worship of aggression . Where victimhood is reserved for the victimiser. This made it impossible for the Zionist project to develop a society in which everyone has an equal share of basic rights. It is up to Israelis to abandon the memes of Zionism.

“Zionism post 1967 has placed a strong emphasis on the Holocaust and Jewish victimhood with the inherent anti-Gentilism that this necessarily entails.” Keith
Keith,
there is no inherent anti-Gentilism in emphasizing the Holocaust. I think it is just something so important to Jews and it has nothing to do with Israel or Zionism. Babiy Yar happened and we care about it. I think most Jews understand (well at least I do) that the perpetrators are not alive. You have this illusion that if there were less movies about the Holocaust or WWII, Jews would just move on. It’s not like that. Also, you are too influenced by Israel Shahak and putting in the same sentence two things that are apart, i.e. Jewish “victimhood” through the ages vs the Holocaust. We all can see that despite the pogroms and persecutions, Jews survived. I myself am a descendant of Jews who were kicked out of Spain. The genocide of WWII is not something we can just “move on” from, on the other hand. But please understand – there is no some universal “anti-Gentilism”. Rather, we recognize that some people don’t like Jews because they are Jews while others may not like Jews because of this alleged power or influence. The first type is the scary one, the second type is OK.

Nathan- to pinsker self emancipation was very focused on self protection. Herzl as well was focused on statehood as undoing the deadly recipe of jew hatred. So, regarding the leaders, I am right. Regarding the soldiers, that is, the rank and file who joined the movement, those that chose migrating to the land rather than migrating to america, they could have chosen individualistic survival by heading to america, they chose national survival, not because of the focus of survival, but the focus on the reborn nation. But the architects and the generals, particularly herzl and pinsker were motivated by the problem of Jewish survival.

is there any historical event you feel is key to understanding American history

i don’t think there is any one key historical event although there were many key events. to understanding our history of the rich consuming the poor, i think a key pivotal event would be Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific.

Keith- Assuming that it is ethical and/or moral for Jews to teach other Jews about Jewish history, what do you think should have been the emphasis of such education in 1967? What year should Jews have figured out how to deemphasize teaching the Holocaust- 1946? 1952? 1961? The proposal is preposterous. The Ashkenazi Jewish people had been uprooted via death out of the European continent, leaving a remnant. The history was bleak and in your face. How to avoid anti gentilism or victimology emphasis raises questions, but the history was there and if history is a permissible pursuit, that was the history.

What year should Jews have figured out how to deemphasize teaching the Holocaust- 1946? 1952? 1961? The proposal is preposterous.

not sure “deemphasizing” is the point. whereas, how it’s emphasized and the way it is taught (ie i recall reading it’s now being taught in kindergarten in israel) could be construed as brainwashing. the movie “defamation” is one potent example of that. here’s another:

“the methods the Jewish Agency used to teach the Shoah in the former Soviet Union in the 1990s”

Weinstein-Gross stresses that the Holocaust Day events were part of a sequence of powerful experiences the children encountered at the Jewish Agency camps, and that both as a camper and counselor they seemed natural to her.

“Today, in retrospect, I wouldn’t want my daughter to have an experience like that,” she reflects. “I think it’s too strong and it’s very manipulative. And in general, as an adult, I don’t think it’s necessary to build our Zionist identity on the basis of the Holocaust.”

Kupchik recalls that some of the campers – children of mixed families – wore crosses, which the counselors made them remove. “Those children didn’t distinguish between Christian culture and their Jewish father or mother. For them it was mixed – Christianity was a cultural thing for them. When I became a counselor that was an issue about which there were heated discussions in the counselors’ room – from whom had crosses been removed? How many were removed?

norm: the irony is that the nazi holocaust has now become the main ideological weapon for launching wars of aggression. everytime you want ot launch a war of aggression, drag in a nazi holocaust. it’s the suffering then used as another pretext or excuse to humiliate degrade and torture the palestinians. that’s the problem, the suffering comes as a package; it then comes

“here is the suffering, now we blow up your house. here is the suffering, now we take your land. here is the suffering, now we shoot artillery shells at your villages.”

it’s a package deal with israel and its american supporters. it’s not just suffering, it’s suffering which is then wrapped in a club, and the club is then used to break the skulls of the palestinians.

that’s the problem. it’s not being used to educate people.it’s not being used to enlighten people, it’s not being used to make people more moral.

interviewer: but it can be.

norm: but it’s not. it’s not! that’s the whole point. of course it can be but it isn’t.

Annie- If we consider a generation to be about 25 years, we certainly would consider 2017 to be substantially different than 1967 in terms of teaching the Holocaust. I do believe that the Holocaust can be abused and it is not my point to defend that. But the American prescription to the Holocaust in the 50’s was: shut up. Maybe since 67 the pendulum swung the other way, but before 67 it was repressed.

What to teach today is totally different question than what to teach in 67. In both cases Zionism presents a question, but in 67 the facts of the world gave the Jewish history teacher no choice but to look into the abyss, it was right there in front of him. obviously such a catastrophe begs for redemption and thus the idea: from the abyss of auschwitz to the apex of jewish sovereignty in jerusalem. a history of such an extreme type requires an answer and in fact there is no answer: neither the “melting pot” of america, nor the permanent war of Israel is an adequate answer to auschwitz. there is no answer. but to the history teacher in 67, who was not looking for an answer, but merely looking at the facts: there was a very seriously stunning fact.

can you source this? an example of someone representing “the American prescription” saying or implying “shut up”?

What to teach today is totally different question than what to teach in 67.

i was in high school in california in 67, we learned about the holocaust but we sure didn’t learn about our countries history genociding native americans. as far as i know, that genocide is still not officially recognized. which genocide do you think is more relevant to american history?

obviously such a catastrophe begs for redemption and thus the idea: from the abyss of auschwitz to the apex of jewish sovereignty in jerusalem.

didn’t obama get royally chewed out for connecting the holocaust with the founding of the state?

to the history teacher in 67, who was not looking for an answer, but merely looking at the facts: there was a very seriously stunning fact.

you’ve lost me here. what “answer” what “seriously stunning fact” should the teacher in 67 have taught? what lesson should every jewish child, and every american child learn, that they could not learn in 67?

a history of such an extreme type requires an answer and in fact there is no answer: neither the “melting pot” of america, nor the permanent war of Israel is an adequate answer to auschwitz

CATALAN- “…there is no inherent anti-Gentilism in emphasizing the Holocaust.”

Perhaps not, however, there most certainly is anti-Gentilism in HOW the Holocaust has come to be emphasized. Norman Finkelstein explains:

“Two central dogmas underpin the Holocaust framework: (1) The Holocaust marks a categorically unique historical event; (2) The Holocaust marks the climax of an irrational, eternal Gentile hatred of Jews. Neither of these dogmas figured at all in public discourse before the June 1967 war; and, although they became the centerpieces of Holocaust literature, neither figures at all in genuine scholarship on the Nazi holocaust….Previously, the Nazi Holocaust was “not cast as a uniquely Jewish — let alone historically unique — event. Organized American Jewry in particular was at pains to place it in a universalist context. After the June war, however, the Nazi Final Solution was radically reframed. “The first and most important claim that emerged from the 1967 war and became emblematic of American Judaism,” Jacob Neusner recalls, was that “the Holocaust…was unique, without parallel in human history.” (p42, “The Holocaust Industry,” Norman Finkelstein) “The other central Zionist dogma deployed after 1967 was that “The Holocaust marks the climax of an irrational, eternal Gentile hatred of Jews.” (p41, Finkelstein)

YONAH FREDMAN- “Keith-is there any historical event you feel is key to understanding American history, or is it all just empires and the rich consuming the poor?”

There is no one key historical event. The key to understanding US and world history is that it reflects the elite struggle for power. In capitalism, money has become the dominant expression of power. The truly unique feature of capitalism is the monetization of power. And yes, empires reflect elite power-lust, the 99% at least somewhat complicit. The one thing I would emphasize is the stunning hypocrisy of the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps a second would be the delegation of money making power to private banks resulting in a debt based monetary system. Mistake, mistake, mistake (for the 99% that is).

YONAH FREDMAN- “Keith- Assuming that it is ethical and/or moral for Jews to teach other Jews about Jewish history, what do you think should have been the emphasis of such education in 1967?”

That the Holocaust was yet another example of mass murder which cannot be understood outside the context of World War II. It most certainly was NOT the culmination of 2000 years of eternal and irrational hatred of Jews by Gentiles.

“But the American prescription to the Holocaust in the 50’s was: shut up. Maybe since 67 the pendulum swung the other way, but before 67 it was repressed.”

I don’t know what the situation was in 1950s America, but I can say that both the German and Japanese atrocities were well known in 1950s Australia. I was born in 1946, and I can remember films from the 1950s that referred to the Holocaust, and books like Scourge of the Swastika. As children of people who actually took part in the war, we discussed these things when we were boys.

“What to teach today is totally different question than what to teach in 67.”

What to teach today is a totally different question from what to teach in 67.

“from the abyss of auschwitz to the apex of jewish sovereignty in jerusalem. a history of such an extreme type requires an answer and in fact there is no answer:”

What on Earth do you mean by an “answer” to history? As Annie asks, what do you want?

“In both cases Zionism presents a question, but in 67 the facts of the world gave the Jewish history teacher no choice but to look into the abyss, it was right there in front of him. obviously such a catastrophe begs for redemption”

And that is what the Jewish history teacher should have been teaching in 1967. (And should be teaching now.)

The catastrophe that the Zionists had wreaked upon Palestine was right there in front of him. Zionism was a moral abyss, and Jews had tumbled or jumped into it. It begs for redemption, if any is possible.

Nathan: “People running away from anti-Semitism (and in need of self-defence) would not have chosen a corner of the Ottoman Empire as their destination …”

Why not? Even the dhimmi status was abandoned in the Ottoman Empire before the first Zionist settlement. Or are you talking about Palestine during WW2? Well, that’s a different story. Have an educated guess who lobbied to make any other destination than Palestine impossible for Jewish refugees.

People running away from anti-Semitism (and in need of self-defence) would not have chosen a corner of the Ottoman Empire as their destination

Oh yeah? Well, the Ottoman Empire to its last day has been the only corner of the world where anyone Jewish (by religion or by heritage) was extra protected. More than all Christians, more than the Moslem peasants. Guess who took up the Spanish and gave them first class accommodation? Guess where the Ostjiddisch fled before there was America? What a stupid &%%.

Before you say anything again, anytime, consider that you are totally unable not to utter something both totally ignorant and totally moronic at the same time, by the fact of having been raised in a Zionist test tube.

“from the abyss of auschwitz to the apex of jewish sovereignty in jerusalem. a history of such an extreme type requires an answer”

Ummm, “yonah” aren’t you being a bit premature? Has “the apex of Jewish sovereignty in Jerusalem” already been achieved?
Israel has a tenuous hold on part of it, in defiance of international law and the UN. Hardly an “apex of Jewish sovereignty”.

Some thoughts:
1. I am not sure what should have been taught in the west in the aftermath of WWII regarding the Holocaust and other WWII atrocities. If the goal was to teach people never to be bystanders, obviously that failed: for Cambodia and Rwanda and other atrocities occurred since then and certainly the hundreds of thousands murdered in Rwanda were not helped one whit by the study of history. Thus my focus is on what Jews were teaching themselves. And as such I assert that within that community (from anecdotal evidence) that the survivors were encouraged to shut up at least til the Eichmann trial and even until the 67 war. (The movie the Pawnbroker was a type of breakthrough as well.)

2. It is likely that the US squelched anti Nazi propaganda after WWII, so as to encourage the alliance with West Germany without raising any resistance. Maybe Australia, a natural ally of Britain, had a different attitude towards West Germany, but I think you will find historians (think of Patton: the nazis are just a political party) will back me up that the US did not wish to emphasize war crimes after WWII and the attention was quickly moved to the cold war.

3. Anyone who has read Meyer Levin on Anne Frank will be familiar with the deracination that was used by Anne Frank’s father and the playwrights to pick Anne frank’s words that fit their own concept of what should be learnt from the diaries.

4. The US is a great destination for the yehudim to express themselves as much or as little as they choose regarding their yehudi religion and yehudi background. I don’t think the culture was as open to yehudim before World War II or for that matter until the ’60’s, I think in that period the “melting pot” aspect, as in “forget the old, endorse the American new” or “don’t rock the boat” were predominant aspects of American culture. I think since the ’60’s there is far more openness to cultural differences and the richness of diversity. But this was not all that true before the ’60’s, so when I refer to the “melting pot” I am referring also to the American pressures towards conformity and leaving the past behind.
(Listen to Artie Shaw, in Ken Burns’ Jazz on the pressures of anti semitism that pushed him to change his name. Of course compared to what was going on in Europe this was trivial, but this attempt to color any Jewish attempt to assimilate into mainstream America as if it was not accompanied by cultural pressures meaning cultural hatred is malarkey. Jew hatred helped shape the Jewish urge to disappear in the American mass. Again, since the 60’s this is less prominent. For the most part any urge to throw off one’s Judaism today is not colored by American hatreds, but in the period before the ’60’s, not true.)

5. The German Nazi slaughter of the Jews between 1939 and 1945 may not be unique, but from a Jewish philosophical point of view it is/was devastating and the search for an “answer” is a natural reaction to hearing such bad news. American optimism in the aftermath of Obama’s election in 2009 was such that slavery and Jim Crow and racism were a prologue to the diverse, one from many that will be the new America. (Obviously such an answer to American history was simplistic as well.) But it is natural for human beings to view history as some sort of a lesson: What can be learnt? How can we avoid those mistakes? Where do we go from here now that we know how we arrived here? Humans want a moral of a story and a path forward. Maybe all attempts at such “answers” are faulty. But we cannot undo the human habit for searching for such answers.

And in the case of the Nazi slaughter of the Jews, there has been no such answer. Zionism is not an answer because of its constant wars and its repression of the Palestinians.

And, America is a great place to be a Jew, but it does not answer the historical event, particularly because of America’s closed door policy towards immigrants between 1920 and 1941. Such a policy may have been natural and in the American self interest and as such should be argued on its own merits. But America, which was of severely limited use to the Jews as a refuge when they needed it most, therefore cannot be the “answer” to the slaughter itself.

YONAH FREDMAN- “But America, which was of severely limited use to the Jews as a refuge when they needed it most, therefore cannot be the “answer” to the slaughter itself.”

Since only about 10% of Jewish immigrants in the 1930s went to Palestine, obviously Zionist Israel was even less of a refuge. Zionism always was about preventing assimilation and restoring Jewish peoplehood. It never was about saving individual Jews or refugeeism. The answer to the Nazi slaughter applies to all cases of mass murder. Eliminate wars and reign in the elites who utilize violence to achieve power. As long as wars continue, there will be large scale death and destruction, particularly if it is nuclear war. It is just a matter of who gets killed and who does the killing. And if you can stop fixating on the Holocaust for a moment, you should be aware that you bear some responsibility for all of the death and destruction which the American empire has visited upon the entire Third World following World War II. And the Holocaust doesn’t make you any less complicit than me. And there are Zionist Jews who are high level imperial decision makers, therefore, directly complicit. Time to stop savoring your perceived victimhood.

The “antifa” are the ones who put their bodies on the line in Charlottesville, Boston, and Berkeley, to defend the actual and potential victims of fascist violence.

I don’t trust the people usually using the antifa flags here in Germany not for one inch. In Germany, if we go protest in solidarity for Palestine, the counter demonstrations look usually something like this:

Antifa is clearly in the racist Israeli camp, quite openly in bed with the Jewish Defense League, Kach & Kahane supporters. The main slogan from “Antifa” & friends I heard from the counter demonstration this year was:

Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, zuviel Stau, unterstützt den Siedlungsbau!

Translated into English it means: Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, too much traffic jam, support settlement construction!

As far as I understand German Antifa closely coordinates with the Israeli embassy and Antifa in the US.

Bandolero: those are some pretty strong claims. I googled “antifa” and “Israel Embassy” and nothing came up which supported the connections you say exist. I know one well-known Antifa supporter, Alexander Reid Ross ( who dubs himself a “Scottish Jew”) who has written a recent book on the topic. When two or three Palestinian rights supporters began asking him why Antifa doesn’t appear to resist Zionism or Zionists, he simply banned us from his website. Other than that I would like to find more definitive evidence of any possible ties which Antifa supporters in America might have to Zionism. Germany has a different history in regards to all this.

“When two or three Palestinian rights supporters began asking him why Antifa doesn’t appear to resist Zionism or Zionists, he simply banned us from his website.”

That’s quite the norm here in Germany with Antifa. Sometimes it’s still possible to get a bit of a pro-Palestinian point of view into Antifa, but these are rare exceptions. Eg, when a BDS group got a place in the annual Antifa demonstration at 1st May in 2016, that was such an exception.

That a BDS group took part in this Antifa demonstration was a novum. The mass media expressed anger: Left Anti-Semitism gaining ground was for example a typical headline for that event:

Anonymous asked:I’ve noticed some Antifa support Palestine and some Antifa support Israel. What are your thoughts on the situation?????

While opinions vary between antifa groups and between antifa members, I am very confident in saying that the vast majority of antifa are against the murderous, racist apartheids-regime in Israel, and support Palestine.

I believe you may be thinking of a pretty obscure part of the German ‘left-wing’ (or that’s what they consider themselves at least) who count themselves as antifa, called AntiDeutsche, or Anti-Germans in English.

They seem to be a result of German guilt over the second world war, the holocaust and nazism. While I can kind of see where they came from they are a bizarre confusing mishmash of ideology. They kind of started around the time people were starting to think of unifying East and West Germany again, when they used the slogan “Nie wieder Germany”, or something like “Never again Germany”. They are very anti-Germany, and very pro-Israel and pro-America.

Their uncritical support of Israel obviously comes as a kind of absolutist response to the holocaust, and their support for America seems to come from the role the USA played in destroying Nazi Germany. Here are some of their banners and slogans:
image
image

Since about 25 years the far left here in Germany is split between so-called Anti-Imperialists and Anti-Deutsche. While the Anti-Deutsche faction – which is basically supporting everything US neocons support, but solidarity with Israel being clearly their number one issue – appeared to be fringe at first, it has grown since to be similar strong as the more traditional pro-Moscow left – and in some regards even stronger. The main bastion inside the radical left that the Anti-Deutsche faction conquered I’ld see as Antifa groups, while the Communist party of Germany is a stronghold of the Anti-Imperialists. The more mainstream German left party “Die Linke” is deeply devided, more or less in camps of the Anti-Deutsche and Anti-Imperialist factions, with an advantage of the Anti-Deutsche faction in leadership positions I’ld say.

That very pro-Israel Antifa elements in Germany coordinate with Antifa elements in the US I was made aware of in discussions regarding the Antifa manhunt on Luke Rudkowski at the recent G20 events in Hamburg. So, since Antifa groups in Germany developed into something ardly more than an oftenly violent pro-Israel-lobby painted in lefty colors, and they coordinate with US Antifa groups, I wonder if the trend in the US goes the same – ie Antifa being transformed into a kind of a brand of pro-Israel street fighting lobby groups painted in lefty colors.

I am not familiar with the history of “antifa” in the US or Europe; but I am familiar with a pattern at American peace demonstrations over the past several decades. It is very common for anti-war marches with a vast majority of nonviolent demonstrators to be infiltrated by a small cadre of young people (wearing black and masks) who destroy property or attack people. The actions and images of this tiny minority often dominate the media coverage and derail the message of the nonviolent demonstrators. Whatever they are calling themselves this year, I’m sick and tired of them coming to our peaceful events; as far as I am concerned they are agents provocateurs and useful idiots. Some Establishment Democrats and Liberal Zionist organizations and pundits who were fear-mongering during the 2016 election about Trump and the rise of neo-fascists have seemed excited about these anti-fascist activists who have been confronting Trump supporters. Some seem to be resonating with the reasoning of “Fascists have to be confronted and shut down early before they gain traction like in Hitler’s Germany.” Fantasies right out of Inglorious Basterds.

Yes, well I’m rather disturbed with the whole antifa thing. They’ve got this attitude like they HAVE to shut down the “fascists” by any means necessary. Thus everyone at Charlottsville looked to me like they were looking for a fight. So I don’t support any of these clowns, however I do not support censoring them either. Case in point: After Charlottsville, the Stormfront.org website was shut down… at the domain name level. Network Solution killed their account, and wouldn’t release it to be used someplace else. Clearly a violation of free speech in my book as they just censored the internet, no question. I suspect it was done by the same elements that one might call “the lobby” around this site. While I can understand the feelings of Jews who might be completely unnerved at the spectacle of fascists marching around saluting with Tiki torches, it should however give Mondoweiss some pause. If they can do it to Stormfront, Mondoweiss is next. I abhor plenty of opinions, I will defend ANYONE their right to a voice with my life. Antifa needs to go non-violent or I’ll be voting for Trump in three years no matter how much I hate him.

“After Charlottsville, the Stormfront.org website was shut down… at the domain name level. Network Solution killed their account, and wouldn’t release it to be used someplace else. Clearly a violation of free speech in my book”

You bet! We should nationalize the Internet, so our free-speech-loving Government can ensure Stormfront .org will be heard, instead of being felled by a blow from the invisible sledge-hammer of the free market. Bad, bad capitalism and free market and free association censoring our free speech. Bad, bad property rights.

And considering what Trump is doing to the EPA, it’s doubtful they can get protection on the “endangered species” list.

The main argument in favour of the antifa seems to be “self-defense”.
Now there is something like “putative” self-defense. Namely, the danger was not real. For example, in Charlottesville, a lot of people feared to be shot, but nobody was shot, and why? Because nobody on both sides really wanted to shoot someone. (Mankind is not as bad as one thinks.)
There’s also something like “excessive” self-defense. Meaning that the counteraction is worse than the imminent danger – or, alternately, worse than necessary for to overcome the imminent danger.
I would be quite satisfied if “antifa” asked themselves at the right moment: Is this putative? Is this excessive?

Yonah….there is no denying that the holocaust was an attrocity and an absolutely tragic event. Zionism has monopolized an event entered into by the nazi regime of 1939 Germany, of which, the extermination of Jews was a part of a greater program conducted by that regime. What Zionism did was speak solely of Jewish loss. The complete program targeted blacks, gypsies, the handicapped, the mentally ill, homosexuals, poles,russians and various captured combatants from multiple nations. It did not target solely Jews. We children of WW2 combatants know that. Our parents taught us daily what Nazis and Japanese did. Zionism took the word Holocaust and used it repetitively to speak solely of Jewish loss. Everyone knows the figure 6 million. No one knows how many poles died or gypsies or especially Russians who were killed in the millions also. In stating this not to minimize Jewish loss or tragedy. I am doing it to get you to see balance and that the Nazi program was not focused solely against or on Jews. Zionism has projected and marketed it as just that. Zionist are the only ones using Jewish loss to gain sympathy for their own wrongdoing against Palestinians. To back people off from criticizing their unacceptable actions. Herzl encouraged anti semitism to be used by Jews to gain sympathy and to obtain their goals of taking ALL Palestine. Truth and honesty and openess is what is needed……many suffered….many.

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.